On Slate, daddy blogger Andy Hinds guiltily wrestles with his sexual fantasies, wants us all to watch

Ogling: People do it. They just don’t all feel the need to write about it on Slate.

In Slate, writer Andy Hinds has provided us all with one of the most cringe-inducing “unsolicited penis updates” since our old friend Paul Elam filled us in on which “fuckmuffin” body parts make his Little Elam happiest.

Hinds starts off by assuring us he’s one of the feminist Good Guys, a stay-at-home-dad who respects the heck out of the ladies:

I celebrate every inroad that women make into business, technology, science, politics, comedy, you name it, and I get angry about “slut-shaming” or “stereotype threat” or whatever is the affront du jour.

But he also admits to having lurid sexual fantasies about, well, woman he finds attractive,

as if a never-ending porn movie has been playing in my subconscious for the last 30 years, and any lull in cognitive demands, or interaction with a woman who is perfect for a cameo in it—the woman walking her dog past my house, the neighbor’s nanny, the Valkyrie on the elliptical trainer at the gym—rotates the film to the main screen. In 3-D.

Yes, that’s right, we’re going to have to endure the sad spectacle of a grown man wrestling with his weird guilt over his sexual fantasies in public.

Though Hinds, thankfully, doesn’t spell out any of his porny fantasies in detail, it seems clear from what he writes that his everyday naughty thoughts, while evidently quite numerous, are more or less in line with the everyday naughty thoughts that every human being with a sex drive has on a fairly regular basis, not the extreme and intrusive thoughts that might require actual mental health treatment.

But, armed with advice from Sex Addicts Anonymous and an ebook called Porn Again Christian, he decides, for a day, to try to clamp down on his lustful thoughts anyway, forcing himself to imagine the potential objects of his lust wearing burqas, and evidently finding that this … helps?

Hinds’ piece has gotten him the attention I guess he wanted from feminists and anti-feminists alike.

From the latter, he’s gotten mostly ridicule for being a self-professed “beta dad” who feels guilty for having normal (hetero) male desires. On Reddit, he’s been bashed by Men’s Rightsers and Red Pillers in mostly predictable ways; on the manosphere blog Gucci Little Piggy, our old pal Chuck Ross complains that Hinds “doesn’t want to be, essentially, a man.”

Feminists have responded with a bit more cheek, telling Hinds, in essence, that’s nice dear, most of us think about sex, we just don’t need to hear all about the filthy thoughts you have about the grocery store cashier. Accompanying a short post on Hinds’ piece with the laconic title “Man Thinks About Sex When He Looks At People,” the Awl helpfully provides us with a photoshopped image of Hinds in a burqa.

On Jezebel, Katie J.M. Baker points out that having fantasies isn’t the problem here.

[I]t’s not sexist to think about boning strangers, [but] it’s horrifying, really, to resort to mentally censoring women so you don’t have to consider the possibility that you’re not actually as much of an “enlightened” feminist as you think but a dude with a latent Madonna-whore complex.

But to me the really cringeworthy aspect of Hinds’ piece is, well, what you’d have to call its exhibitionism. He doesn’t just talk about the women who inspire his fantasies in some vague generic sense; he specifies who these women are — not by name, but in such a way that if these women read his piece they’ll know he’s talking about them in particular: the staff at his kid’s school, the cashiers at his local grocery store, the women in his yoga class.

My classmates are mostly women, mostly in yoga pants and tank tops; and naturally the ones with the best form are also the most fit and attractive. Perhaps one day I’ll be able to honestly say that I can look at a woman in a downward facing dog pose and be struck only by her strength and flexibility. Today is not that day.

Ewww.

His post on Slate is the journalistic equivalent of going up to them and saying, hey, pretty lady whom I run into on a regular basis but otherwise know nothing about, whenever I see you I think about doing you. It’s almost, if not quite, the journalistic equivalent of sending them unsolicited dick pics.

EDIT: That’s not quite right. That might be the appropriate metaphor if he had spelled out his fantasies. But he didn’t. What he’s doing is more like the journalistic equivalent of a catcall. Which is still pretty icky, especially if you’re virtually catcalling the woman in front of you in yoga class, or your kids’ teacher.

At the end of his post, Hinds proudly reports that his Day of the Burqa has helped him to lust after the ladies less.

This technique of essentially ignoring women’s physical presence may not be sustainable, and it may not be desirable. But it also seems like as good an alternative as any to giving women unwanted (or even wanted) sexual attention … .

Yeah, then you went ahead and wrote an article for Slate announcing to these women, and the world, that you’ve been thinking all sorts of nasty thoughts about them for years. Keep it in your pants, and off the internet.

Going back to this nonsense – which I know has been covered, but is so wtf:

This technique of essentially ignoring women’s physical presence may not be sustainable, and it may not be desirable. But it also seems like as good an alternative as any to giving women unwanted (or even wanted) sexual attention … .

Noticing and fantasising about people =/= telling them about it.

Telling the strangers or bare acquaintences he mentions about his fantasies is harassment.

What sort of immature twit thinks the only alternative to shoving his fantasies in people’s faces is pretending they don’t exist? How is erasure any more respectful than fantasising privately?

And then he tells us this is satire? Nope, fail. It’s not funny, pointed, or clever, just stupid and immature. If any of the people or situations he described are real, it’s creepy. It’s also not hitting up, which satire is supposed to do. It’s just whiny frat (or prat) humour at best.

And what the fuck kind of response is “Eww” to the socially awkward Hinds’ expression of sexual desire. If a socially awkward girl rambled about her conflicting sexual desires, would anyone tolerate let alone celebrate this kind of psychotic and sadistic response?
Dude… are you for real?? I can only speculate to what kind of effed up psyche and sexual identity you have.

I notice the latest dipshit troll didn’t bother to read the rest of what David said:

www.

His post on Slate is the journalistic equivalent of going up to them and saying, hey, pretty lady whom I run into on a regular basis but otherwise know nothing about, whenever I see you I think about doing you. It’s almost, if not quite, the journalistic equivalent of sending them unsolicited dick pics.

EDIT: That’s not quite right. That might be the appropriate metaphor if he had spelled out his fantasies. But he didn’t. What he’s doing is more like the journalistic equivalent of a catcall. Which is still pretty icky, especially if you’re virtually catcalling the woman in front of you in yoga class, or your kids’ teacher.

And “sadistic response”? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA who was it telling him he “doesn’t want to be a man” and all the usual shit? Men’s Righters, that’s who. As cited in the post.

So quick question: Do people think it would be OK for me to draw Christopher Hitchens into my comic? Or should I extend him some respect for being dead?

Speaking as an atheist, I find this concept deeply offensive!
Oh.. wait, sorry, I mistook myself for someone who takes things far too seriously.
In general, I have a lot of respect for the guy… perhaps not in all specifics, but in general. He certainly seemed to be at least peripherally feminist, though I’m basing this on statements about how the reproductive freedom of women is necessary for healthy societies and little else, so please correct me if I’m wrong on that. Anyway, I don’t think he’d be offended by your including him just because he’s dead, so anyone else who is should probably get a grip. I mean, I’m all for respect for the dead, but I don’t think respecting means refusing to criticise or mock if deserved, and I think he’d agree… in fact I know he would – he certainly didn’t hold back when others died.

yazikus: I’d like it (nor for myself,I recognise Sassoon, and Rosenberg, and Seeger, and Owen, and any number of others, whose names are at present escaping me) because most people have no idea who the trench poets were; and so are likely to think that all quoted were written by the author of the first.

My favorite is somewhat personal, and probably the most bitingly bitter of Wilfred Owen’s work.

So quick question: Do people think it would be OK for me to draw Christopher Hitchens into my comic? Or should I extend him some respect for being dead?

I don’t have t
For myself, I figure nil nisi bonum only applies if you weren’t saying ill things of him before he died. Me, I think he was a shit, and a hypocrite, and a lousy human being; though sometimes clever with words, and I see no reason to not keep saying because he croaked.

Christopher Hitchens would not want you to respect him because of his death. Anyway it’s been over a year now. And look what he did to Mother Teresa.
I know a woman who knew him from his days in the Trotskyist movement and she says he used to be a nice guy. His atheist mysogeny proves that getting rid of religion won’t do anything to help women’s rights.

So I actually agree with Pecunium for once generally about Hitchens. Finally the Catholic Church on this site is back together, albeit for one brief second!
I disagree with Hitchens on nearly everything; I prefer his brother. But Hitch Twenty-Two (the memoir from right before his death) was a great book.

To a question asked earlier on this thread, I’m not sure if I should link to my conversations with white nationalists, because people here will probably troll them, leading to them trolling this site, and I do not want to create more work for the moderator.
I have not posted on MRA sites yet. Next week I need to take a break from the Internet to take care of some real life business. I will get to it after that break.

And what the fuck kind of response is “Eww” to the socially awkward Hinds’ expression of sexual desire.

Nobody wants to hear about his sexual desires, dude. And this isn’t some slipped up starting to say something, he typed the whole damn thing out and put it on the internet. Not really an accident.

If a socially awkward girl rambled about her conflicting sexual desires, would anyone tolerate let alone celebrate this kind of psychotic and sadistic response?

If she was being as creepy as Hinds was, fuck yes. Nobody needs to be creeped on like that. Also, please stop equating socially awkward with creeper who angsts about their fantasies on the internet because they are not the same.

@katz

So quick question: Do people think it would be OK for me to draw Christopher Hitchens into my comic? Or should I extend him some respect for being dead?

PPT. If you’ll take a hint from an old feminist, I’d take a a few days and a fair bit of time reading not just posts but comment threads if you’re wanting to get into those places.

Otherwise you might find yourself in some very deep, very hot, smelly and murky water you’d rather not deal with. You might find us difficult or opinionated or stroppy. We are not in the same league as them. A good number are seriously nasty. A few are close to criminal (in what they say, I have no idea what they do). Maybe your previous contact with racists will make some of it less of a shock than it might be to a real noob, but it won’t be comfortable let alone pleasant.

But a bit of reading in advance will at least prepare you for who among the commenters is likely to say which particularly vile or offensive things.

Oh now that’s just precious. He won’t provided requested evidence because we might and then they might and then THINK OF THE MODERATOR!! Truly, adorable. A whole new excuse to not provide citations, that takes effort.

Also, pretty sure pecunium gives exactly zero fucks whether you agree with him. Entirely sure that acting like you two are some sort of in club because your both Catholic is gross.

Pecunium — wanna be grouped with him as Catholic or me as a heretic? 🙂

Shouldn’t the “all sex is rape” position be properly described as “all heterosexual penetrative sex is rape”? I mean, it just seems like the first formulation is a wee bit presumptive.

Cuz, to be fair, there are lots of kinds of sex — even among us straight people — that don’t involve penetration. Even if we grant that all penetrative sex between men and women is rape, that still leaves a lot of fun stuff for straight men and women to do with each other during sexyfuntime.

For the record, I don’t grant that, and I don’t know any feminist past or present who does. And I think the failure to make this distinction tells us more about MRA/PUA prejudices than it does about feminism itself.

If nothing else, it’s a failure of the imagination.

As for the OP article, all I can say is, “dude, grow up; your article is creepy.”

The ideal with looking like those great pics would be if we just did Hulk-style transformations in the presence of MRAs. It’d be a response to toxic levels of misogyny, probably with high doses of stupidity thrown in. Of course the response would create a few other smells, but knowing MRA had just shit himself, or at least wet himself, would be so worth it.

PPT: I know a woman who knew him from his days in the Trotskyist movement and she says he used to be a nice guy.

These women you know sure get around. They know the Vatican, they knew Hitchens. I’m impressed (BTW, the Archdiocese to call, (save you the hassle of calling Vatican City) is New York. I’m sure the local bishop will be all over calling me in for an examination: I’m sure that when I leave it, I’ll still be a communicant of the Church, but go to town, AMDg).

To a question asked earlier on this thread, I’m not sure if I should link to my conversations with white nationalists, because people here will probably troll them, leading to them trolling this site, and I do not want to create more work for the moderator.

Unh hunh. Pull the other one (and no, “The Catholic Church on this site is not together. You are not The Church and we are not the only Catholics present).

Argenti: Pecunium — wanna be grouped with him as Catholic or me as a heretic?

I think the venn diagram would actually show the three of us in the Circle of Heretics, while he and I also overlapped in Catholic.

It’s just that the heresies aren’t the same. (because all catholics can be defined as heretics; just depends on how old they are which of the beliefs of their youth which are no longer doctrinally correct are corrupting their present practice of the Catholic Religion; like life, it’s messy).

We Hunted the Mammoth tracks and mocks the white male rage underlying the rise of Trump and Trumpism. This blog is NOT a safe space; given the subject matter -- misogyny and hate -- there's really no way it could be.